This another interesting topic that was discussed in my tutorial but I didn't truly understand it at the time. But I did a bit more reading on it and now I have a stance on it.
Again like my PM being too powerful I shall keep it relatively short and just discuss the main point/points to highlight the stronger arguments. My take on this is that: No, representation in Parliament should not Mirror Canada' Social Diversity.
First off I'd like to say that doing so would increase social fragmentation and group identification, as a canadian, I think that no matter where you are from or what background you have you are still canadian and anyone who is qualified enough should be able to represent us even if they do not share the same experiences. If we did follow representation by social diversity that would cause mass segragation among us.
Secondly if we did have social diversity representation then this would creat first and second class MPs because identity based representation is condescending. We want the best represenation possible not people who think they can represent us just because they share some of our traits.
Lastly, it is faulty to assume that having a diverse parliament would ensure that all minor issues would be solved. The Parliament is a place where large scale issues that affect the country as whole are discussed and dealt with.
Do you think that the diversity of Canada can be adequately representated if their needs and itnerests are not advanced by those who share their gender, Aboriginal status, ethnicity, race or disability?
What do you think?
-SW
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Is the Prime Minister too powerful?
I felt rather compelled to discuss this topic a while back especially after writing my essay and discussing this in the tutorial.
As it is a blog, I'll keep it rather simple and somewhat short but the debates could go on forever... But essentially my take on the this topic is that the Prime Minister is not too powerful. And I will address one particular main point and that would be this:
-Powers within the Government limit the PM's power.
If for example, the PM opposed a particular bill or motion but someone of similar stature, Finance Minister could challenge the PM's opposition and the like. This example can be seen when Paul Martin as the Finance Minister wanted to announce a major pension plan change for Canadians but PM Chretian opposed this and Martin challenged him and eventually Chretian subccombed.
In my opinion the Prime Minister is not too powerful in the worldy scale and lacks any sort of power compared to say the President of the United States. However, I would say he does have substantial power in Canada. This can be seen through the invoking of the War Measures Act by Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
Any opinions or takes on the PM's power?
-SW
As it is a blog, I'll keep it rather simple and somewhat short but the debates could go on forever... But essentially my take on the this topic is that the Prime Minister is not too powerful. And I will address one particular main point and that would be this:
-Powers within the Government limit the PM's power.
If for example, the PM opposed a particular bill or motion but someone of similar stature, Finance Minister could challenge the PM's opposition and the like. This example can be seen when Paul Martin as the Finance Minister wanted to announce a major pension plan change for Canadians but PM Chretian opposed this and Martin challenged him and eventually Chretian subccombed.
In my opinion the Prime Minister is not too powerful in the worldy scale and lacks any sort of power compared to say the President of the United States. However, I would say he does have substantial power in Canada. This can be seen through the invoking of the War Measures Act by Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
Any opinions or takes on the PM's power?
-SW
Monday, July 21, 2008
Afghan violence rising, top soldier concedes
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080721.CASUALTY21/TPStory/?query=afghan+violence
This has always got me baffled.. whether or not I have been completely informed or not about the situatino is quite irrelevant... but why are we still sending our soldiers off to afghan? I mean, 4 months ago the House of Commons voted to extend Canada's Afghan mission until 2011...
The violence doesn't seem to be dying down but has what I would call "blips", the ups and downs and seemingly no end...
From what I recall, the whole "war" in the middle east was invoked by the US president to "combat terrorism" which led to liberating them from dictatorship and the likes... Granted we are under some sort of agreement to back up the US, but its been so long alraedy, you would think they'd give it a rest?
It seems that there are some postitive effects to hwo things are going on in the east, but is it really worth sending so many of our soldiers off just to be blown up? We are Canadians and we are the peacekeepers in the eyes of many, so why is this still going on?
Someone enlighten me please.
-SW
This has always got me baffled.. whether or not I have been completely informed or not about the situatino is quite irrelevant... but why are we still sending our soldiers off to afghan? I mean, 4 months ago the House of Commons voted to extend Canada's Afghan mission until 2011...
The violence doesn't seem to be dying down but has what I would call "blips", the ups and downs and seemingly no end...
From what I recall, the whole "war" in the middle east was invoked by the US president to "combat terrorism" which led to liberating them from dictatorship and the likes... Granted we are under some sort of agreement to back up the US, but its been so long alraedy, you would think they'd give it a rest?
It seems that there are some postitive effects to hwo things are going on in the east, but is it really worth sending so many of our soldiers off just to be blown up? We are Canadians and we are the peacekeepers in the eyes of many, so why is this still going on?
Someone enlighten me please.
-SW
Legalizing mj?
It seems like one of the most controversial issues amongst today is whether or not marijuana should be legalized. I've heard many points for and against it. My stance still stands strong that it should be left illegal.
I know, marijuana is a plant and many argue that alcohol, cigarettes and coffee are more damaging to one’s system than marijuana. However, I think my primary concern is the fact that marijuana has to ability to really impair one’s mind, vision and reaction time. For those that drive under the influence of this drug, it could be extremely dangerous to those around him/her.
Laws are in place to protect society. The problem with legalizing pot is that right now, unlike alcohol, there is no way of detecting whether or not someone is under the influence of the drug. We can’t find those kinds of drivers roaming our streets and have no way of catching them. Roadside sobriety test doesn’t necessary help with this issue as marijuana is not detected in any way except through blood.
Yes, many can argue that making marijuana legal will lower crime rates, but the issue at hand is still that there is no way of detecting if one is under the influence of it. The dangers of marijuana users running around high is one that should be taken into careful consideration.
I definitely feel like for the safety of our citizens in Canada, marijuana is not something that should be hastily made legal. What are your thoughts? Should the government change the laws on this drug?
I know, marijuana is a plant and many argue that alcohol, cigarettes and coffee are more damaging to one’s system than marijuana. However, I think my primary concern is the fact that marijuana has to ability to really impair one’s mind, vision and reaction time. For those that drive under the influence of this drug, it could be extremely dangerous to those around him/her.
Laws are in place to protect society. The problem with legalizing pot is that right now, unlike alcohol, there is no way of detecting whether or not someone is under the influence of the drug. We can’t find those kinds of drivers roaming our streets and have no way of catching them. Roadside sobriety test doesn’t necessary help with this issue as marijuana is not detected in any way except through blood.
Yes, many can argue that making marijuana legal will lower crime rates, but the issue at hand is still that there is no way of detecting if one is under the influence of it. The dangers of marijuana users running around high is one that should be taken into careful consideration.
I definitely feel like for the safety of our citizens in Canada, marijuana is not something that should be hastily made legal. What are your thoughts? Should the government change the laws on this drug?
Crackdown on those speeders already!
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2008/07/21/hwy63-speeding-tickets.html
So apparently the RCMP has issued more than 300 speeding tickets over the weekend on Highway 63 in Alberta. 6 people have died in crashes this year and 10 the year before.
The highway is how many citizens get to work and other places. How can this many people be speeding on it and still be tolerated. That puts everybody driving on it at risk. About 80% of the tickets being issued are related to speeding. The law enforcement officers have issued 2000 speeding tickets on that highway this year.
This poses a serious threat on everyone else that uses the highway. The government definitely needs to address the speeding laws. So many times those that receive a speeding ticket get off of it easily. Officer doesn’t show up or technicalities often do the trick. Speeding is a serious offense in which it can take someone’s lives. It increases the chance of collision significantly.
With any law, we need to execute the enforcement and the punishment. Just because a lot of tickets are being issued, the punishments need to follow with it too. Those speeders need to recognize the consequences and realize how dangerous it is for themselves and others when they choose to go so much over speed limit. Those speed limits are there to serve a purpose which is to protect society. I don’t know how safe we would all feel knowing that everybody is driving at such a fast pace that the chance of collisions is extremely likely.
What do you all think? Should police officers focus on nabbing these speeders, or is this a minor issue compared to others?
- VL
So apparently the RCMP has issued more than 300 speeding tickets over the weekend on Highway 63 in Alberta. 6 people have died in crashes this year and 10 the year before.
The highway is how many citizens get to work and other places. How can this many people be speeding on it and still be tolerated. That puts everybody driving on it at risk. About 80% of the tickets being issued are related to speeding. The law enforcement officers have issued 2000 speeding tickets on that highway this year.
This poses a serious threat on everyone else that uses the highway. The government definitely needs to address the speeding laws. So many times those that receive a speeding ticket get off of it easily. Officer doesn’t show up or technicalities often do the trick. Speeding is a serious offense in which it can take someone’s lives. It increases the chance of collision significantly.
With any law, we need to execute the enforcement and the punishment. Just because a lot of tickets are being issued, the punishments need to follow with it too. Those speeders need to recognize the consequences and realize how dangerous it is for themselves and others when they choose to go so much over speed limit. Those speed limits are there to serve a purpose which is to protect society. I don’t know how safe we would all feel knowing that everybody is driving at such a fast pace that the chance of collisions is extremely likely.
What do you all think? Should police officers focus on nabbing these speeders, or is this a minor issue compared to others?
- VL
Canada urged to bring Khadr home
Ironically, for the last two posts I have been talking about the Khadr case and I just happend to cross yet another one!
This particular article discusses how Canada is urged to bring Khadr home and questioning why we haven't done so earlier. Khadr was sent to Guantanamo Bay, an American detention camp located on the shore of Cuba. In 2002, at the age of 15, Canadian citizen Omar Khadr was sent to Guantanamo, and has remained there ever since. Considering Khadr's age, this is a unique case in Canadian legal and political history.
He is charged with taking part in various acts of terrorism, the most severe being the accusation that he threw the grenade that killed American Sgt. Christopher Speer. Earlier this year, documents that indicated there was no significant proof that Khadr was the one handling the grenade were accidentally released from the Pentagon. In June, the Canadian government proposed a possible repatriation of Khadr, although talks are still preliminary
The most fustrating thing I would say is that it's taking numerous years before our governmetn finally interjects and is trying to solve the issue finally...
And I find a lot of the "proof" is quite questionable as I remember in earlier articles that there was no mention of this "evidence" until recently....
Comments?
-SW
This particular article discusses how Canada is urged to bring Khadr home and questioning why we haven't done so earlier. Khadr was sent to Guantanamo Bay, an American detention camp located on the shore of Cuba. In 2002, at the age of 15, Canadian citizen Omar Khadr was sent to Guantanamo, and has remained there ever since. Considering Khadr's age, this is a unique case in Canadian legal and political history.
He is charged with taking part in various acts of terrorism, the most severe being the accusation that he threw the grenade that killed American Sgt. Christopher Speer. Earlier this year, documents that indicated there was no significant proof that Khadr was the one handling the grenade were accidentally released from the Pentagon. In June, the Canadian government proposed a possible repatriation of Khadr, although talks are still preliminary
The most fustrating thing I would say is that it's taking numerous years before our governmetn finally interjects and is trying to solve the issue finally...
And I find a lot of the "proof" is quite questionable as I remember in earlier articles that there was no mention of this "evidence" until recently....
Comments?
-SW
Former PM says Khadr should be returned
Previous Liberal government unaware of extent of abuse allegations, Martin says...
This just came to my attention after I finished making my postings on the current PM being very selfish... there wasn't too much info on this article but it was an interesting read...
Former prime minister Paul Martin says Canada should take steps to bring Omar Khadr back to Canada and I totally agree with him because as fellow citizens of Canada we should do what we can for each other...
Although this seems like anotehr stab at Harper but again they mention that he has refused to intervene and insisting Canada has "no real alternative" but to follow a U.S. military tribunal's proceedings against Khadr.
Now let's ask why a Canadian citizen should be following the U.S military proceedings?
Another interesting point to make is why does the Former PM care? He hasn't been in the house of commons for ages and is currently taking care of personal agenda at hand.
Comments?
-SW
This just came to my attention after I finished making my postings on the current PM being very selfish... there wasn't too much info on this article but it was an interesting read...
Former prime minister Paul Martin says Canada should take steps to bring Omar Khadr back to Canada and I totally agree with him because as fellow citizens of Canada we should do what we can for each other...
Although this seems like anotehr stab at Harper but again they mention that he has refused to intervene and insisting Canada has "no real alternative" but to follow a U.S. military tribunal's proceedings against Khadr.
Now let's ask why a Canadian citizen should be following the U.S military proceedings?
Another interesting point to make is why does the Former PM care? He hasn't been in the house of commons for ages and is currently taking care of personal agenda at hand.
Comments?
-SW
PM 'playing politics' with Khadr because of 'brown skin,' Muslim says
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/464372
I know that Haper was a pretty good guy but after reading this made me stop and think for a moment. How deceptive is our PM?
The situation is as such: Recently a canadian muslim by the name of Omar Khadr is being held for the reason of potentially being involved with the 9-11 incident because he is a muslim.
So what's the problem and why is Stephen Harper the bad guy?
After the 9-11 incident, the U.S in particular has what many have deemed as “Islamophobia” and Canadian Islamic Congress president Mohamed Elmasry, believes Harper's lack of action is because he wishes to score "political points".
He further believes that “This is where a leader comes in to say, `This is really wrong and I have to correct that wrong by bringing this person (back to Canada) even if I lose some political points with Islamophobes,”’ Elmasry said in an interview today.
Contrasting this is the case of William Sampson who was helped out and freed from a death sentence in Saudi Arabia in 2003 and it was the federal Liberal government of the day made pleas on Sampson’s behalf to the Saudi government.
Why is Stephen Harper so callously indifferent to Omar Khadr’s case?” Elmasry wrote.
“It’s painfully obvious: William Sampson is a white Westerner while his fellow Canadian citizen, Omar Khadr, is brown-skinned and a Muslim.”
As you can see there is no logic behind Harper's action so the only reason left is that he is trying to gain favour and political points...
Anyone feel the same that Harper is looking out for himself and not for the people?
-SW
I know that Haper was a pretty good guy but after reading this made me stop and think for a moment. How deceptive is our PM?
The situation is as such: Recently a canadian muslim by the name of Omar Khadr is being held for the reason of potentially being involved with the 9-11 incident because he is a muslim.
So what's the problem and why is Stephen Harper the bad guy?
After the 9-11 incident, the U.S in particular has what many have deemed as “Islamophobia” and Canadian Islamic Congress president Mohamed Elmasry, believes Harper's lack of action is because he wishes to score "political points".
He further believes that “This is where a leader comes in to say, `This is really wrong and I have to correct that wrong by bringing this person (back to Canada) even if I lose some political points with Islamophobes,”’ Elmasry said in an interview today.
Contrasting this is the case of William Sampson who was helped out and freed from a death sentence in Saudi Arabia in 2003 and it was the federal Liberal government of the day made pleas on Sampson’s behalf to the Saudi government.
Why is Stephen Harper so callously indifferent to Omar Khadr’s case?” Elmasry wrote.
“It’s painfully obvious: William Sampson is a white Westerner while his fellow Canadian citizen, Omar Khadr, is brown-skinned and a Muslim.”
As you can see there is no logic behind Harper's action so the only reason left is that he is trying to gain favour and political points...
Anyone feel the same that Harper is looking out for himself and not for the people?
-SW
More Secured Passports!
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/463999
There has been anticipation for this year that an increase of 10 percent in applications for passports and passports being issued. This year 5.2 million passports were applied for. There seems to be a continued increase from year to year in the amount of people applying for passports.
The Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s announced that he has plans for a higher-security electronic passport. He will increase the expiry date to 10 years, which is double of what it is now. This new passport will look very much like the one we have now, except a tamper-resistant microchip will be embedded in it to hold the owner’s personal data.
When traveling to our neighbour just south of us, none other than United States, birth certificates and other documents does not suffice anymore as of last year. A passport will be needed for a Canadian citizen to cross the border.
This all means that there are going to be more restrictive rules on our passport which could mean more limits on our freedom of mobility. However, this does mean higher security of who is entering or leaving our country. Sometimes to protect our society, the government has to put limits on our freedoms such as wearing a seat belt or having a speed limit.
Is this regulation just another one of those in which it limits our freedom but is better for us?
What do you all think about this? Does this change benefit us or does it constrain us some more?
- VL
There has been anticipation for this year that an increase of 10 percent in applications for passports and passports being issued. This year 5.2 million passports were applied for. There seems to be a continued increase from year to year in the amount of people applying for passports.
The Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s announced that he has plans for a higher-security electronic passport. He will increase the expiry date to 10 years, which is double of what it is now. This new passport will look very much like the one we have now, except a tamper-resistant microchip will be embedded in it to hold the owner’s personal data.
When traveling to our neighbour just south of us, none other than United States, birth certificates and other documents does not suffice anymore as of last year. A passport will be needed for a Canadian citizen to cross the border.
This all means that there are going to be more restrictive rules on our passport which could mean more limits on our freedom of mobility. However, this does mean higher security of who is entering or leaving our country. Sometimes to protect our society, the government has to put limits on our freedoms such as wearing a seat belt or having a speed limit.
Is this regulation just another one of those in which it limits our freedom but is better for us?
What do you all think about this? Does this change benefit us or does it constrain us some more?
- VL
GREEN SCREEN ON DECISIONS
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080721.wenvironment21/BNStory/National/home
Earlier this month a new law was passed that received Royal Assent. Regardless of who or what decisions are being made by senior public servants, an outline of how the environment will be affected will need to be put forth. The environment must be attempted to be protected at all cost, failure to comply will result in consequences such as losing their annual bonuses. This also applies to politicians in trying to ensure that the government’s environmental goals are being met.
I think this is a wonderful measure to try to encourage the whole ‘go green’ goals of Canada. This is another step towards environmental commitments that need to be made and should be made. Now public servants and the government will work towards trying to sustain our environment the best we can. I hope now ‘going green’ can be taken more seriously on all decisions being made that would affect the environment in any way.
I definitely think this is a great idea because the environment would be taken into consideration more and be given a priority. However, what percentage of bonuses would be deemed acceptable to take from these public service executives? What price do they have to pay for making decisions that affect the environment? What do you think? It seems like they still have some fine tuning on this law that need to be made.
-VL
Sunday, July 20, 2008
NOTICE THE ABORIGINALS!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080719.NATIVES19/TPStory/TPNational/Politics/
Our Prime Minister is finally going to do something more for the aboriginals and their issues this fall! Provincial and territorial premiers are meeting with Stephen Harper to discuss all the poor social conditions Canada’s aboriginals are facing.
Quebec Premier Jean Charest advises Mr. Harper to fix the aboriginal education and social condition issue as a means of apology for the residential schools.
Aboriginals have felt neglected by Canada, a nation that is also their home, for so long. Perhaps they will finally get the closure and attention they need as promised by Harper to address their concerns in the fall. Harper says he will pledge $5 billion over the next five years to work with provinces to try and build the standard of living for the aboriginals. It will hopefully reach the national average within 10 years time.
This pledge is one that can’t be broken for Harper’s own sake. He made that pledge to help aboriginals in writing, loud and clear. National aboriginal leaders are probably invited to the fall’s meeting too. Not that he should back down from what he promises to do anyways.
I think the aboriginals in Canada have been neglected long enough. Their needs are important and the government has taken long enough to see that. Hopefully, their standard of living can increase and they will feel more included within this nation. I strongly believe that by helping them reach the national average of standing of living is the least we can do for them.
What do you all think? Should Harper set aside so much money and effort to help the aboriginals?
-VL
Our Prime Minister is finally going to do something more for the aboriginals and their issues this fall! Provincial and territorial premiers are meeting with Stephen Harper to discuss all the poor social conditions Canada’s aboriginals are facing.
Quebec Premier Jean Charest advises Mr. Harper to fix the aboriginal education and social condition issue as a means of apology for the residential schools.
Aboriginals have felt neglected by Canada, a nation that is also their home, for so long. Perhaps they will finally get the closure and attention they need as promised by Harper to address their concerns in the fall. Harper says he will pledge $5 billion over the next five years to work with provinces to try and build the standard of living for the aboriginals. It will hopefully reach the national average within 10 years time.
This pledge is one that can’t be broken for Harper’s own sake. He made that pledge to help aboriginals in writing, loud and clear. National aboriginal leaders are probably invited to the fall’s meeting too. Not that he should back down from what he promises to do anyways.
I think the aboriginals in Canada have been neglected long enough. Their needs are important and the government has taken long enough to see that. Hopefully, their standard of living can increase and they will feel more included within this nation. I strongly believe that by helping them reach the national average of standing of living is the least we can do for them.
What do you all think? Should Harper set aside so much money and effort to help the aboriginals?
-VL
Canadian Workers Recognized By All Provinces!
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/462637
The premiers of Canada are allowing Canadian workers more freedom to move around within the nation. The skills of workers would be recognized in every province and territory by April 1.
McGuinty hopes to make Canada as competitive as it can possibly be. A worker’s qualification should be recognized by all areas within the nation. The only exception would be for safety and security reasons. This new legislation would not allow the movement of workers to hinder their credentials. If employers discriminate credentials because of relocation then the penalties can be up to $5 million.
According to Manitoba Premier Gar Doer, he says that a teacher is a teacher; a nurse is a nurse, despite where you are.
I think this is a very good change for both the employers and the workers. It will make the option of relocating much easier on workers. This will also allow them to avoid having to go through a recertification process. Employers will also gain from this because they have a wider selection of potential employees to choose from. This is really awesome because I feel like one’s credentials should have been recognized from an earlier time. It’s better now than never though. I really do feel like one’s qualification should not depend on where in Canada they are, but rather a standard that applies to all of Canada. Whether or not a person relocates to another place, their credentials should not be undermined.
What do you all think? Do you think different provinces should have different certification? That just because you are certified in Newfoundland does not mean you would be in say, Ontario?
-VL
The premiers of Canada are allowing Canadian workers more freedom to move around within the nation. The skills of workers would be recognized in every province and territory by April 1.
McGuinty hopes to make Canada as competitive as it can possibly be. A worker’s qualification should be recognized by all areas within the nation. The only exception would be for safety and security reasons. This new legislation would not allow the movement of workers to hinder their credentials. If employers discriminate credentials because of relocation then the penalties can be up to $5 million.
According to Manitoba Premier Gar Doer, he says that a teacher is a teacher; a nurse is a nurse, despite where you are.
I think this is a very good change for both the employers and the workers. It will make the option of relocating much easier on workers. This will also allow them to avoid having to go through a recertification process. Employers will also gain from this because they have a wider selection of potential employees to choose from. This is really awesome because I feel like one’s credentials should have been recognized from an earlier time. It’s better now than never though. I really do feel like one’s qualification should not depend on where in Canada they are, but rather a standard that applies to all of Canada. Whether or not a person relocates to another place, their credentials should not be undermined.
What do you all think? Do you think different provinces should have different certification? That just because you are certified in Newfoundland does not mean you would be in say, Ontario?
-VL
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Filipina Nanny can take advantage of Canada’s Health-Care System
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/07/18/juana-tejada.html
Juana Tejada, a nanny from the Philippines, has been living in Canada since 2003, under the live-in caregiver program. In 2007, she was diagnosed with colon cancer and she wanted the right to stay in Canada to receive proper care. Initially, the immigration department refused to grant her the right to stay in the country, but recently, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has reversed the decision and Juana Tejada has been granted permanent residency and is therefore allowed to stay in Canada to receive health-care.
I think there are two issues regarding this situation. Not only has Juana been given the opportunity to receive medical attention from Canada, but she has also been granted permanent residency! Is this fair? I am not familiar with the immigration process but from what I understand, it definitely takes a lot of time (years) to become a permanent resident of Canada and in this situation, we have an individual who is very sick and bam…she gets permanent residency. I strongly disagree with the decision to allow her to become a permanent resident of Canada. I believe that once she is done her treatment, she should either go back to her home country, or apply to be a permanent resident just like everyone else. Why should she be treated differently?
I strongly believe that Juana is entitled to receive health-care from Ontario. She has devoted time to the Canadian economy, working for us, and contributing her time and efforts to us, and why would we turn around and send her back to her homeland to receive care? How cold-hearted is that!? People may say that she is being a burden on the health-care system, using our tax dollars for her benefit, but she did pay taxes for four years. She didn’t come here because she was sick…she came here to work and got sick while she was trying to benefit the Canadian economy.
The government will surely have to amend legislation regarding the issue of people from overseas coming to Canada to work. I am sure that we will be seeing a lot of cases where people will come to Canada (already knowing that they’re sick), work for a year and try to get health-care benefits, using Juana Tejada’s case as a precedent. The government will definitely need to think long and hard about what they are going to do about future cases of people coming from away and working. Are they still going to have to pay tax dollars? If so, then they should be granted health-care, since they contributed to it. Will they be granted permanent residency? As I said before, I don’t think that they should, but the government may have a different opinion on this.
What do you guys think about this issue?
SS
Juana Tejada, a nanny from the Philippines, has been living in Canada since 2003, under the live-in caregiver program. In 2007, she was diagnosed with colon cancer and she wanted the right to stay in Canada to receive proper care. Initially, the immigration department refused to grant her the right to stay in the country, but recently, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has reversed the decision and Juana Tejada has been granted permanent residency and is therefore allowed to stay in Canada to receive health-care.
I think there are two issues regarding this situation. Not only has Juana been given the opportunity to receive medical attention from Canada, but she has also been granted permanent residency! Is this fair? I am not familiar with the immigration process but from what I understand, it definitely takes a lot of time (years) to become a permanent resident of Canada and in this situation, we have an individual who is very sick and bam…she gets permanent residency. I strongly disagree with the decision to allow her to become a permanent resident of Canada. I believe that once she is done her treatment, she should either go back to her home country, or apply to be a permanent resident just like everyone else. Why should she be treated differently?
I strongly believe that Juana is entitled to receive health-care from Ontario. She has devoted time to the Canadian economy, working for us, and contributing her time and efforts to us, and why would we turn around and send her back to her homeland to receive care? How cold-hearted is that!? People may say that she is being a burden on the health-care system, using our tax dollars for her benefit, but she did pay taxes for four years. She didn’t come here because she was sick…she came here to work and got sick while she was trying to benefit the Canadian economy.
The government will surely have to amend legislation regarding the issue of people from overseas coming to Canada to work. I am sure that we will be seeing a lot of cases where people will come to Canada (already knowing that they’re sick), work for a year and try to get health-care benefits, using Juana Tejada’s case as a precedent. The government will definitely need to think long and hard about what they are going to do about future cases of people coming from away and working. Are they still going to have to pay tax dollars? If so, then they should be granted health-care, since they contributed to it. Will they be granted permanent residency? As I said before, I don’t think that they should, but the government may have a different opinion on this.
What do you guys think about this issue?
SS
Friday, July 18, 2008
Watch Your Gas Tank...Literally
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/462665
I came across this article today, and it caught my eye, as I’m sure with soaring gas prices, this thought has come across almost everyone’s mind. Cases of leaving a gas station without paying has increased 40% in York Region this year compared to last year. This is happening at least once a day, ranging from as low as $50, and reaching as high as $90, and I would not be surprised if there were instances higher than $100. It has even gone so far that people have resorted to not only stealing gas from gas stations, but siphoning gas from other people’s cars as well.
Gas stations have cameras, although sometimes it is unable to pick up the suspect’s face, or
license plate making it almost impossible to track them down. As a result, many gas stations are considering installing pumps that require a customer to pay before pumping. The pump will not operate until the transaction has gone through and it will automatically shut off once the preset amount has been reached. (Also recommend is a locking gas cap for your own car)
I personally believe that this is a good idea and should be implemented by the gas companies as this will eliminate people leaving without paying, however, this may raise issues among the general public. Installing these pumps are labeling some as thieves before they even arrive at the pump. The effects of people leaving the pump without paying are passed on to the others in the community.
I am an honest person and always pay for my gas but I’m not able to judge how much gas I am going to put in my car. Who knows how far $15 dollars worth of gas is going to get you these days. What happens if I want a full tank and not sure how much it is? What if I think it will take $20, but $15 fills it up? Will the gas company refund my money?
What do you guys think about this solution? What else can be done to stop people from driving off without paying?
SS
I came across this article today, and it caught my eye, as I’m sure with soaring gas prices, this thought has come across almost everyone’s mind. Cases of leaving a gas station without paying has increased 40% in York Region this year compared to last year. This is happening at least once a day, ranging from as low as $50, and reaching as high as $90, and I would not be surprised if there were instances higher than $100. It has even gone so far that people have resorted to not only stealing gas from gas stations, but siphoning gas from other people’s cars as well.
Gas stations have cameras, although sometimes it is unable to pick up the suspect’s face, or
license plate making it almost impossible to track them down. As a result, many gas stations are considering installing pumps that require a customer to pay before pumping. The pump will not operate until the transaction has gone through and it will automatically shut off once the preset amount has been reached. (Also recommend is a locking gas cap for your own car)
I personally believe that this is a good idea and should be implemented by the gas companies as this will eliminate people leaving without paying, however, this may raise issues among the general public. Installing these pumps are labeling some as thieves before they even arrive at the pump. The effects of people leaving the pump without paying are passed on to the others in the community.
I am an honest person and always pay for my gas but I’m not able to judge how much gas I am going to put in my car. Who knows how far $15 dollars worth of gas is going to get you these days. What happens if I want a full tank and not sure how much it is? What if I think it will take $20, but $15 fills it up? Will the gas company refund my money?
What do you guys think about this solution? What else can be done to stop people from driving off without paying?
SS
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Smoking Bans
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/smoking/smokingbans.html
For some time now, smoking has been banned in many places, including offices and enclosed areas including bars and restaurants. In addition, separate smoking rooms have been closed down as well, which was something that I was unaware of.
I think that anti-smoking legislation is great. The government took a while to implement this law, which is one of the negative aspects I see with this whole issue. You think they would have acted sooner eh? I mean, especially with the effects of second-hand smoke.
I think that getting rid of separate smoking rooms all together is pretty bad. Why? I am not a smoker, and I am not trying to justify that it is a good habit to take on, but some people need to smoke. They are just so addicted to it and taking a few puffs relaxes them and puts them at ease…so why get rid of those separate rooms? It’s not like non-smokers will be subjected to the smoke since the room is an enclosed area. Anyone who goes into a smoking room will have to deal with the consequences on their own, whether or not the are a smoker.
On another note, I strongly believe that smokers who get sick, (because of smoking), need to pay some sort of fee for health care. I know that health care is free in Canada, and that is great. However, those who smoke are just asking to get sick…their sickness is more or less avoidable and they should not be given free health care when there are other sick individuals who get sick because of some unavoidable factor. It isn’t your fault that someone smokes and it certainly is not my fault that someone smokes…it is THEIR fault and they should pay the consequences for this if they end up in the hospital room because of smoking.
I do realize that a law like this would be VERY hard to implement, but I want to know what you think about this. Firstly, what do you think about the issue of separate smoking rooms, and secondly, what do you think about the idea of having smokers pay for health care if they get sick because of their bad habit?
SS
For some time now, smoking has been banned in many places, including offices and enclosed areas including bars and restaurants. In addition, separate smoking rooms have been closed down as well, which was something that I was unaware of.
I think that anti-smoking legislation is great. The government took a while to implement this law, which is one of the negative aspects I see with this whole issue. You think they would have acted sooner eh? I mean, especially with the effects of second-hand smoke.
I think that getting rid of separate smoking rooms all together is pretty bad. Why? I am not a smoker, and I am not trying to justify that it is a good habit to take on, but some people need to smoke. They are just so addicted to it and taking a few puffs relaxes them and puts them at ease…so why get rid of those separate rooms? It’s not like non-smokers will be subjected to the smoke since the room is an enclosed area. Anyone who goes into a smoking room will have to deal with the consequences on their own, whether or not the are a smoker.
On another note, I strongly believe that smokers who get sick, (because of smoking), need to pay some sort of fee for health care. I know that health care is free in Canada, and that is great. However, those who smoke are just asking to get sick…their sickness is more or less avoidable and they should not be given free health care when there are other sick individuals who get sick because of some unavoidable factor. It isn’t your fault that someone smokes and it certainly is not my fault that someone smokes…it is THEIR fault and they should pay the consequences for this if they end up in the hospital room because of smoking.
I do realize that a law like this would be VERY hard to implement, but I want to know what you think about this. Firstly, what do you think about the issue of separate smoking rooms, and secondly, what do you think about the idea of having smokers pay for health care if they get sick because of their bad habit?
SS
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Should Party Discipline be Relaxed?
My take on this topic is that: no, it should not be relaxed.
The argument is for relaxing party discipline is that MPs should not be “trained sheep” but an MP is elected to serve as a member of a particular party. Within the party, the MP is called upon to deliberate and participate in formulating policies, and then to accept a support the majority decision.
The Prime Minister and government must have the means of achieving their objectives and as MPs are a member of a particular party that provides broad perspectives on NATIONAL issues, individual constituencies and every single issue at hand shouldn't always be on the top of the agenda.
The party "whip" has many misconceptions such as being the menancing disciplinarian imposing the will of the party on recalcitrant MPs. However, this is not the case, although there are some instances where MPs have been coerced or even threatened with sanctions if they do not conform. But party discipline is largely self-imposed. Besides, MPs at least for the sake of their own self-preservation, are willing to tolerate party discipline…(ex: no MP since 1940 has ever broken party ranks during a minority government nor has any MP ever left the government side with a majority fewer than nine seats.
As you can see, we need a certain degree of party discipline to get anything done and to have a solid government. Now a better question would be to ask should Canada move close to an American Model where congress is able to vote according to their set of principle and ethics?
Thoughts? Opinions?
-SW
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
McGuinty is all for sparing the boreal forests
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080714.wboreal0714/BNStory/Science/home
Dalton McGuinty has a plan to combat climate change. This plan is to protect and shelter half of Ontario’s boreal forest away from mining and other types of projects. This area will be at least 225,000 square kilometres. This vast amount of land will be left restricted to tourism and traditional aboriginal uses.
With many countries all over the world hungry for Canada’s natural resources, it is absolutely necessary to draw a line between conservation and development. New Democrat MPP Gilles Bisson can agree to that however he thinks McGuinty is putting the plan out there too soon. There are few details in the plan right now and it’s something that will take several years to implement.
The boreal forest has not been disturbed by human activity since the glaciers retreated. With the growing pressure to continue mining exploration, as well as the forestry companies in search of more natural resources riches, planning for protection of it is absolutely necessary.
The government is also going to introduce legislation to reform mining laws in the fall. This is great because the Native leaders and ForestEthics in Ontario have been pressuring the government to change the mining laws for some time now.
I think this is an excellent idea. It’s wonderful to see our government take environmental protection and the native’s request into serious consideration. This is definitely heading in the right direction and the government seems to go at it with a great attitude. I would love to continue to see them work towards helping the environment and focusing on the needs of the natives. This will be the largest conservation commitment in Canada. It’s great to see the bar being consistently raising to protect the environment around the country.
What else do you think the government can do to help protect the environment in Canada? Do you think we should even protect the boreal forest or should we continue more exploration and search of natural resources? Opinions?
-VL
Dalton McGuinty has a plan to combat climate change. This plan is to protect and shelter half of Ontario’s boreal forest away from mining and other types of projects. This area will be at least 225,000 square kilometres. This vast amount of land will be left restricted to tourism and traditional aboriginal uses.
With many countries all over the world hungry for Canada’s natural resources, it is absolutely necessary to draw a line between conservation and development. New Democrat MPP Gilles Bisson can agree to that however he thinks McGuinty is putting the plan out there too soon. There are few details in the plan right now and it’s something that will take several years to implement.
The boreal forest has not been disturbed by human activity since the glaciers retreated. With the growing pressure to continue mining exploration, as well as the forestry companies in search of more natural resources riches, planning for protection of it is absolutely necessary.
The government is also going to introduce legislation to reform mining laws in the fall. This is great because the Native leaders and ForestEthics in Ontario have been pressuring the government to change the mining laws for some time now.
I think this is an excellent idea. It’s wonderful to see our government take environmental protection and the native’s request into serious consideration. This is definitely heading in the right direction and the government seems to go at it with a great attitude. I would love to continue to see them work towards helping the environment and focusing on the needs of the natives. This will be the largest conservation commitment in Canada. It’s great to see the bar being consistently raising to protect the environment around the country.
What else do you think the government can do to help protect the environment in Canada? Do you think we should even protect the boreal forest or should we continue more exploration and search of natural resources? Opinions?
-VL
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Dion grabs bull by horns - Liberal leader pitches carbon tax plan as a way for Alberta to redeem its 'damaged' reputation
http://www.thestar.com/article/455124
CALGARY–The federal Liberal leader drew on his past as a national-unity fighter to pitch his carbon tax plan to Albertans, saying the risk to Canada's future is as grave now as it was during the 1995 referendum.
Stéphane Dion proposed that the Carbon tax be implemented, and inparticular in Alberta. However, his use of reasoning is greatly flawed and no doubt extremely insulting. Towards the Albertans.
"We have a united Canada, a Canada built on clarity and mutual respect. We did it with the courage, the determination, of a cowboy from Calgary," Dion told Liberal party supporters yesterday."
Concerns regarding the envireonment are a primary concern for all candians alike and as such Alberta is receiving a lot of attention because it is the oil-producing province. It is curious however as to why Dion thinks that Alberta has a damaged reputation and that his "carbon tax" would be the answer to it. I personally do not think of Alberta as a province with a bad rep especially with oil-producing, so what evidence does Dion have that the public don't seem to know about?
With Dion and the liberal party's plan for taxing fossil fuels, the amount would be approximately $15 billion in revenue and by no means is that a small amount.
Dion confidently says that ""Not a penny will go in the revenue of the government."
However, most of us would agree that this type of promise is hardly worth remembering because like most politicians, when it comes to money, they'd do anythign to get it. But I'm not saying that they would take all of it, but it won't all go back to the people thats for sure.
In my opinion, Dion is would probably wreck the country.
People receiving income tax cuts will use savings to buy energy with a carbon tax or more gas to fuel up their vehicles to travel to work every day. How is that even possible? I mean the liklihood of it all? And , if Alberta's reputation is negative, Alberta will naturally find environmental ways to improve it, after all they want to continue to sell oil.
Just as a slight humourous note, carbon tax? Nearly everything is composed of Carbon... Does that mean we get taxed on everything? Brilliant Dion, just bloody brilliant.
Opinions on Mr. Dion's carbon tax?
-SW
CALGARY–The federal Liberal leader drew on his past as a national-unity fighter to pitch his carbon tax plan to Albertans, saying the risk to Canada's future is as grave now as it was during the 1995 referendum.
Stéphane Dion proposed that the Carbon tax be implemented, and inparticular in Alberta. However, his use of reasoning is greatly flawed and no doubt extremely insulting. Towards the Albertans.
"We have a united Canada, a Canada built on clarity and mutual respect. We did it with the courage, the determination, of a cowboy from Calgary," Dion told Liberal party supporters yesterday."
Concerns regarding the envireonment are a primary concern for all candians alike and as such Alberta is receiving a lot of attention because it is the oil-producing province. It is curious however as to why Dion thinks that Alberta has a damaged reputation and that his "carbon tax" would be the answer to it. I personally do not think of Alberta as a province with a bad rep especially with oil-producing, so what evidence does Dion have that the public don't seem to know about?
With Dion and the liberal party's plan for taxing fossil fuels, the amount would be approximately $15 billion in revenue and by no means is that a small amount.
Dion confidently says that ""Not a penny will go in the revenue of the government."
However, most of us would agree that this type of promise is hardly worth remembering because like most politicians, when it comes to money, they'd do anythign to get it. But I'm not saying that they would take all of it, but it won't all go back to the people thats for sure.
In my opinion, Dion is would probably wreck the country.
People receiving income tax cuts will use savings to buy energy with a carbon tax or more gas to fuel up their vehicles to travel to work every day. How is that even possible? I mean the liklihood of it all? And , if Alberta's reputation is negative, Alberta will naturally find environmental ways to improve it, after all they want to continue to sell oil.
Just as a slight humourous note, carbon tax? Nearly everything is composed of Carbon... Does that mean we get taxed on everything? Brilliant Dion, just bloody brilliant.
Opinions on Mr. Dion's carbon tax?
-SW
Tories appoint Manning to science advisory panel
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/458917
The Conservative government has appointed Preston Manning, the founder of the Reform party, to the federal science advisory panel.
Manning will join the Council of Canadian Academies that provides an "independent, expert assessment of the science underlying pressing issues and matters of public interest."
The group is supposed to "build public confidence that policy and regulatory decisions are being based on broadly accepted scientific knowledge and evidence."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper came under sharp criticism from the scientific community last winter when he phased out the position of national science adviser.
Now the questions that come to mind is how qualified is Preston Manning for this position? I mean is science even one of his strong points? Most politicians would usually have strengths in areas outside of science.
I'm not too sure who this Preston Manning is but I really don't see the relevance or how it would help out Canada in any possible way.
Can someone shed some light ont this?
-SW
The Conservative government has appointed Preston Manning, the founder of the Reform party, to the federal science advisory panel.
Manning will join the Council of Canadian Academies that provides an "independent, expert assessment of the science underlying pressing issues and matters of public interest."
The group is supposed to "build public confidence that policy and regulatory decisions are being based on broadly accepted scientific knowledge and evidence."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper came under sharp criticism from the scientific community last winter when he phased out the position of national science adviser.
Now the questions that come to mind is how qualified is Preston Manning for this position? I mean is science even one of his strong points? Most politicians would usually have strengths in areas outside of science.
I'm not too sure who this Preston Manning is but I really don't see the relevance or how it would help out Canada in any possible way.
Can someone shed some light ont this?
-SW
More Boundaries on Young Drivers?
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/457677
The government are considering new restrictions to be placed on young drivers as there has been a rising concern in the number of young driver’s accidents occurring. The government are reconsidering the Ontario’s graduated licensing system as it may be deemed as not so effective. Recently, there was a car accident in Muskoka that killed three people, all of which were either twenty years of age or younger.
Some say that the Ontario’s graduated licensing system is one of Canada’s most powerful in being effective and restrictive as after it was implemented in 1994, the rate of young driver’s accidents dropped tremendously. This is agreed by both Mothers against Drunk Driving and the Insurance Bureau of Canada.
Others disagree and feel that more restrictions and regulations need to be in place. There has been buzz about taking the new restrictions to a higher level such as the blood alcohol limit should be zero for all drivers under the age of 21, cell phones are to be turned off and out of reach as well as the amount of passengers a G2 licensed driver may carry.
Transportation minister, Jim Bradley, says that Ontario is second next to Northwest Territories for being the safest North American jurisdiction. However, the government will continue to strive to reduce the amount of young driver’s collisions even more so.
I think that adding any more restrictions on young drivers is not necessary. I mean, I feel like we already have a lot. G2 drivers already have a restriction on the number of passengers they can carry from 12am to 5am. It seems like the true rising concern is in the number of alcohol related accidents as oppose to young drivers accidents. There seems to be enough problems with enforcing the current laws and regulations already, without the proper funding, adding more restrictions won’t change anything drastically.
Let me know what you all think? Do you think young drivers need any more restrictions then the ones they already have?
-VL
The government are considering new restrictions to be placed on young drivers as there has been a rising concern in the number of young driver’s accidents occurring. The government are reconsidering the Ontario’s graduated licensing system as it may be deemed as not so effective. Recently, there was a car accident in Muskoka that killed three people, all of which were either twenty years of age or younger.
Some say that the Ontario’s graduated licensing system is one of Canada’s most powerful in being effective and restrictive as after it was implemented in 1994, the rate of young driver’s accidents dropped tremendously. This is agreed by both Mothers against Drunk Driving and the Insurance Bureau of Canada.
Others disagree and feel that more restrictions and regulations need to be in place. There has been buzz about taking the new restrictions to a higher level such as the blood alcohol limit should be zero for all drivers under the age of 21, cell phones are to be turned off and out of reach as well as the amount of passengers a G2 licensed driver may carry.
Transportation minister, Jim Bradley, says that Ontario is second next to Northwest Territories for being the safest North American jurisdiction. However, the government will continue to strive to reduce the amount of young driver’s collisions even more so.
I think that adding any more restrictions on young drivers is not necessary. I mean, I feel like we already have a lot. G2 drivers already have a restriction on the number of passengers they can carry from 12am to 5am. It seems like the true rising concern is in the number of alcohol related accidents as oppose to young drivers accidents. There seems to be enough problems with enforcing the current laws and regulations already, without the proper funding, adding more restrictions won’t change anything drastically.
Let me know what you all think? Do you think young drivers need any more restrictions then the ones they already have?
-VL
Friday, July 11, 2008
Canada’s Health Care System
I’m sure we all believe that Canada’s health care system is the greatest because it’s free and easily accessible, right? I know that I used to think that, but recently, my aunt was admitted to a hospital and had to wait two days to get a bed. This is just ridiculous. How can a hospital not have enough beds for their sickly patients? On top of this, she also had to wait 4 days to get a room. Until then, she had to “chill out” in the emergency room. That’s not good at all. I’m not saying that she deserved a first class bed, or first class room, but some decent care would have been nice.
Having free health care is awesome, but when anyone gets a sign of a cold or fever, they run to a hospital because they know that they don’t have to pay for anything. Every Jack and Jill will go the hospital, back the line up and people who have very serious problems will have to wait. I don’t think this is fair at all. I understand that people should have to wait their turn, but when people start dying in emergency rooms, the government has to put on their thinking cap and try to solve this problem.
Why can’t the government expand hospitals? Why can’t they hire more nurses and doctors to cover their patients? Why don’t they fund Ontario med schools and allow them to have more slots for med students? Don’t they realize that a lot of prospective doctors go to the States, England or the Caribbean because there aren’t enough slots for med students in Ontario? The Canadian government must realize that because health care is free, people will definitely use it; the demand for health care will always be high once health care is free. Hospitals in Canada are going to be a lot more populated than those in the US because of the fact that there is no cost, and the government has to prepare for this…especially with the aging population on the rise.
Do you think that offering private clinics in Ontario would be beneficial at all? These private clinics would cost money, but it would benefit those who have the money and who need urgent care.
The government is taking MY money to fund healthcare. That’s cool. However, if I ever need to go to a hospital and have to wait for a bed…Let me just say that it won’t be pretty!
SS
Having free health care is awesome, but when anyone gets a sign of a cold or fever, they run to a hospital because they know that they don’t have to pay for anything. Every Jack and Jill will go the hospital, back the line up and people who have very serious problems will have to wait. I don’t think this is fair at all. I understand that people should have to wait their turn, but when people start dying in emergency rooms, the government has to put on their thinking cap and try to solve this problem.
Why can’t the government expand hospitals? Why can’t they hire more nurses and doctors to cover their patients? Why don’t they fund Ontario med schools and allow them to have more slots for med students? Don’t they realize that a lot of prospective doctors go to the States, England or the Caribbean because there aren’t enough slots for med students in Ontario? The Canadian government must realize that because health care is free, people will definitely use it; the demand for health care will always be high once health care is free. Hospitals in Canada are going to be a lot more populated than those in the US because of the fact that there is no cost, and the government has to prepare for this…especially with the aging population on the rise.
Do you think that offering private clinics in Ontario would be beneficial at all? These private clinics would cost money, but it would benefit those who have the money and who need urgent care.
The government is taking MY money to fund healthcare. That’s cool. However, if I ever need to go to a hospital and have to wait for a bed…Let me just say that it won’t be pretty!
SS
Biofuels...good or bad?
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2008/07/10/6118486.html
As we all know, going green is the big thing in Ontario right now. Harper has passed a law that states that all fuel must contain five per cent biofuel, such as ethanol and biodiesel, by 2010.
For those of you who don’t quite understand what biofuel is, it is very similar to petroleum so it can very well be used in diesel engines without being too expensive. Since oil is scarce, researchers have been looking at biofuel and have realized that it could be used as gas in our cars and can help to slow down global warming.
Biofuel comes from food such as corn, wheat and straw and there are many environmental advantages from using biofuel as a substitute. It is renewable, domestic, clean, reduces emissions into the environment and biodegradable. It all sounds great, right? The main question, however, is who is benefiting from this newly implemented law?
As I stated before, biofuels come from various food crops, but a lot of our crops come from developing nations. Developing countries have lower costs and apparently, their biofuels have a higher energy content than those produced in places like Canada and the US.
Don’t you think that our reliance on developing countries biofuel is disadvantaging them to a great extent? Countries like Canada and the US have the money to get crops from developing nations at a low cost and are charging their consumers a ridiculous amount. I’m sure you’re all aware that food prices are going up…the introduction of biofuels could be a reason why.
We’re taking food from the developing nations, and this has caused many riots in Haiti, for example. I heard on the news that they were going crazy because they have no food at their disposal because people from the Western world are pretty much stealing it from them!
Harper is using his power to make Canada a better place, but in doing so, he is making developing countries worse off.
What do you guys think about biofuels? Good or bad?
SS
As we all know, going green is the big thing in Ontario right now. Harper has passed a law that states that all fuel must contain five per cent biofuel, such as ethanol and biodiesel, by 2010.
For those of you who don’t quite understand what biofuel is, it is very similar to petroleum so it can very well be used in diesel engines without being too expensive. Since oil is scarce, researchers have been looking at biofuel and have realized that it could be used as gas in our cars and can help to slow down global warming.
Biofuel comes from food such as corn, wheat and straw and there are many environmental advantages from using biofuel as a substitute. It is renewable, domestic, clean, reduces emissions into the environment and biodegradable. It all sounds great, right? The main question, however, is who is benefiting from this newly implemented law?
As I stated before, biofuels come from various food crops, but a lot of our crops come from developing nations. Developing countries have lower costs and apparently, their biofuels have a higher energy content than those produced in places like Canada and the US.
Don’t you think that our reliance on developing countries biofuel is disadvantaging them to a great extent? Countries like Canada and the US have the money to get crops from developing nations at a low cost and are charging their consumers a ridiculous amount. I’m sure you’re all aware that food prices are going up…the introduction of biofuels could be a reason why.
We’re taking food from the developing nations, and this has caused many riots in Haiti, for example. I heard on the news that they were going crazy because they have no food at their disposal because people from the Western world are pretty much stealing it from them!
Harper is using his power to make Canada a better place, but in doing so, he is making developing countries worse off.
What do you guys think about biofuels? Good or bad?
SS
Monday, July 7, 2008
Selling Booze in Corner Stores?
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/455326
We are all aware that we can get beer from the good old LCBO and the Beer Store but the provincial government is proposing a different mode of selling alcohol – in corner stores and convenience stores.
A big barrier on the progress of this idea, however, is the fact that Ontario Premier McGuinty stated that it is easier to maintain security through the LCBO and The Beer Store than to give that power to thousands of convenience stores. It is interesting to see that McGuinty’s main concern seems to be the issue of power. What does this say about the government to you? Doesn’t it just seem like all they’re in it for is to exercise its power over its people? By selling alcohol publicly, the government is getting large tax revenue and is benefiting from this. Convenient stores have been given the authority to sell age-restricted products such as tobacco, lottery tickets and fireworks, so why should they not be given the authority to sell alcohol? It would give consumers easier, more flexible and open access to alcohol and could very well increase the amount of sales because of its extreme convenience.
What about the big issue of Going Green? The government wants to impose initiatives on Canadian citizens, encouraging us to go green. They want us to carpool, save gas, and they even want factories to cut down the amount of carbon gases they emit into the atmosphere. They want to make it seem like they care, yet they fail to realize that having a limited amount of locations selling booze will increase the amount of driving that people have to do. An increase in driving means an increase in gas usage, resulting in increased pollution, which contributes to harming the environment. In essence, the government has good intentions, but they don’t want to do what is necessary to achieve their goals!
I think that selling booze in corner stores should be strongly considered. There should be cameras put in place to ensure that there would be no under-aged individuals buying alcohol. Strict guidelines should be put in place regarding the age limit, and it should be enforced to its fullest degree.
What do you guys think about this? Do you think the government is only in it for themselves? Do you think it would be beneficial to sell booze in corner stores? What would the consequences be (if any) to sell booze in corner stores? What about the advantages? How can we ensure that under-aged individuals will not benefit from the selling of alcohol in corner stores?
SS
Friday, July 4, 2008
How should Prostitution be dealt with?
More often than not, prostitution is associated with downtown Toronto. However, the true reality is that prositution is everywhere, including residential areas.
Some homeowners have been surprised by the presence of prostitutes in their neighbourhood day after day, waiting to be picked up. For some people, this is very bothersome, considering the fact that their children are being exposed to this ‘dirtyness’ at such a young age.
What particularly bothers me is that a resident in the area has been trying to contact the local police about this issue, and nothing has been done about it. But my main question is whether or not the police are responsible for this issue?
It is to my knowledge that women are legally allowed to be a prostitute, but it is illegal to practice it on the streets. Therefore, the police are the ones who should be enforcing this law, especially when it is a practice that it is occurring in residential neighbourhoods!
Police officer, Laplme mentioned that it is very difficult to charge a person with prostitution because they have to be found actually committing the crime. I can understand why the prostitutes have to be found guilty, before getting arrested, but if this is going to be the rule, then prostitution on the streets will always exist. No one is going to follow a woman into a car, and watch them have sex – this is infringing on their rights and freedoms, so how is prostitution ever going to disappear? It will always be a problem in Canada partly because of the strict guidlelines in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I strongly believe that the case of prostitution needs to be dealt with, but how? What sanctions can be imposed that are not directly interfering with individuals rights and freedoms? The government could implement a law that says that is is illegal to be a prostitute, but then how do you prove that someone is a prostitute? It’s immoral to make judgements based on someone’s appearance, so if the government does implement a law like this, they would be back at square one and it really wouldn’t solve anything.
Do you guys have any ideas what the government should to reduce the amount of prostitues on the streets?
SS
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Canada not happy with Zimbabwe's illegal election...
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/30/canada-zimb.html?ref=rss
Zimbabwe has recently had an election, and the former President, Robert Mugabe, has been re-elected. Many people believe that he has won this position illegally and illigetimately, by threatening and intimidating his rival, Morgan Tsvangirai. Zimbabwe is on its way to seeing a political crisis.
The Canadian government has strong views on this issue and they believe that Robert Mugabe should not be appointed President because of the tactical measures he has taken to achieve this position. Canada has implemented the following sanctions:
- Restricting travel, work and study of senior members of Zimbabwe's government within Canada.
- Banning Zimbabwe-registered aircraft from landing in or flying over Canada.
- Summoning the ambassador of Zimbabwe to Canada to convey Canada's position.
- Requesting Canadian businesses to voluntarily stop doing business with Zimbabwe
I believe that the Canadian government is holding a strong stance on this issue and is doing what they feel is best and what they feel is morally acceptable, but in reality, what is this going to accomplish? Mugabe will still be the President, and he won’t be stopped from doing immoral things because of Canada’s strategy to limit any sort of communication with Zimbabwe. Canada’s strategy will accomplish nothing!
Is it really fair to punish the people of Zimbabwe? I mean, they cannot come to Canada to visit their family! I don’t think this is fair to them. I understand that the Canadian government wants to prove a point, but punishing the people of the country is not the way to do it. Can the Canadian government deal solely with Mugabe and not penalize the citizens of Zimbabwe? What do you guys think about this?
Requesting Canadian businesses to stop doing business with Zimbabwe is a good move on the Canadian governments part, but I don’t think Canada does much business with Zimbabwe in the first place anyways!
What do you guys think about the way that Canada is dealing with this issue? Is it good? Is it bad? Is it pointless?
SS
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Staying clear of Emergency Vehicles
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/02/20/emergency-vehicle.html
Earlier this year, a new law, passed by the provincial government, was implemented which requires drivers to move over to the passing lane if they are passing an emergency vehicle with flashing lights. The consequences of non-compliance to this law is a $490 fine and three demerit points. A repeat offence results in a fine up to $1,000 and possible jail time.
It is important to know that the exact clause states the following:
“…when approaching an emergency vehicle with its emergency lights activated, [a driver] must slow down, and must move away. In addition, on a multilane highway they must also move a complete lane away from the emergency vehicle if it's safe to do so.”
This law, being implemented in Ontario, will very well contribute to the safety of police officers. Pulling over a vehicle on the 401, and having cars passing close to the shoulder at high speeds, does put police officers lives at stake. There have been many instances where officers have been injured because of ignorant drivers who fail to provide ample room between their vehicle and the officer on the shoulder. So, in this sense, this law is beneficial to police officers. However, I personally believe that the clause is very ambiguous in its wording. What constitutes as “safe to do so?” What if one person differs in their perception of when a safe lane change can be done, versus another individual? Many people have different driving styles and some people may think it’s safe to change lanes when there is three meters of space, and someone else may think it is safe to change lanes when there is five meters of space. The result of this law will be a lot of tickets being fought in court. It is very hard to prove in court whether or not you felt it was safe to do so.
What do you guys think can be done to fix the ambiguity of the clause?
SS
Earlier this year, a new law, passed by the provincial government, was implemented which requires drivers to move over to the passing lane if they are passing an emergency vehicle with flashing lights. The consequences of non-compliance to this law is a $490 fine and three demerit points. A repeat offence results in a fine up to $1,000 and possible jail time.
It is important to know that the exact clause states the following:
“…when approaching an emergency vehicle with its emergency lights activated, [a driver] must slow down, and must move away. In addition, on a multilane highway they must also move a complete lane away from the emergency vehicle if it's safe to do so.”
This law, being implemented in Ontario, will very well contribute to the safety of police officers. Pulling over a vehicle on the 401, and having cars passing close to the shoulder at high speeds, does put police officers lives at stake. There have been many instances where officers have been injured because of ignorant drivers who fail to provide ample room between their vehicle and the officer on the shoulder. So, in this sense, this law is beneficial to police officers. However, I personally believe that the clause is very ambiguous in its wording. What constitutes as “safe to do so?” What if one person differs in their perception of when a safe lane change can be done, versus another individual? Many people have different driving styles and some people may think it’s safe to change lanes when there is three meters of space, and someone else may think it is safe to change lanes when there is five meters of space. The result of this law will be a lot of tickets being fought in court. It is very hard to prove in court whether or not you felt it was safe to do so.
What do you guys think can be done to fix the ambiguity of the clause?
SS
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
